Frank Dobson: No, I have given way already.
	It has to be said that the Serjeant at Arms is unlikely to see the Metropolitan police as jackbooted storm-troopers of the police state; she sees them as working colleagues. They may very well have exploited that in their relations with her by not making clear that she was entitled to ask them for a warrant. The police got the consent of the Serjeant at Arms, and went to the offices of the hon. Member for Ashford, where they were challenged by a representative of the Leader of the Opposition, who again, does not seem to have asked whether they had a warrant. The whole situation is a mess, and we are responsible for it.
	Contrary to a lot of the media coverage that seems to suggest that the Speaker makes the rules, the Speaker does not make the rules—we make them, and the Speaker is there to carry them out. The big problem is that the rules are not clear. We all agree that there is something called parliamentary privilege, but hardly anybody agrees exactly what it amounts to. It is apparent from reading articles by apparently learned academics in the news media that they do not agree either on the boundaries of our parliamentary privilege.
	If we are serious about parliamentary privilege, we need to clarify what we mean by it. We should turn it into statute law to show that we take it seriously and that anyone who breaches it will be dealt with seriously. I would also include in such a law the Wilson doctrine that prohibits our phones being tapped. It was not very long ago that the previous Prime Minister was going to undermine that doctrine, and he was only prevented from doing so by a Cabinet revolt. Conventions cannot be set aside at the behest of a Prime Minister or any individual, which is why we need to shift the rules on parliamentary privilege to statute law.

Simon Hughes: I would say the following to the hon. Gentleman. You have made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that various people have responsibility for these issues: yourself, the Serjeant at Arms, in some respects the Leader of the House, the Clerk of the House and those who advise them—Mr. Speaker has counsel and there are law officers who are available to be consulted. The hon. Gentleman raises questions that should be answered. If they cannot be answered today, potentially because nobody who can speak in this debate knows the answers, they could be answered quickly and with no prejudice to any inquiry about the hon. Member for Ashford or anybody else.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been widely quoted by the press as having said that the man should be sacked— [Interruption.]—by the Tory press, and I see no reason for that denial.
	All the parliamentary documents that I have been able to examine, including "Erskine May" and Standing Orders, contain nothing relevant to this controversy, and confirm no privilege of any kind in such circumstances. The nearest we can come to anything relevant to this huge unwarranted fuss is contained in the excellent briefing for this debate prepared by the House of Commons Library. A statement by one Professor Bradley—

Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to see that amendment (e) stands not only in my name, but in the names of Members from all parts of the House.
	I wish it had not been necessary to table this amendment. It is not just the recollection of the precise language that you, Mr. Speaker, used last Wednesday, but our recollection of the spirit in which your suggestion was received, that makes me believe that the motion before us does not properly reflect what you intended or what the House believed to be right.
	I think we can agree that we are in unique and disturbing circumstances. Earlier, some Members were rather dismissive of the importance of the issues we are discussing, pointing to our overwhelming obligation to represent our constituents on issues such as economics and council housing, but I firmly believe the matters we are discussing are precisely what gives us the power and the influence to deal with issues such as economics, council housing and the like. Our responsibilities involve both the scrutiny of Government and the redress of grievance. If we cannot be confident that our communications with our constituents are confidential, there is necessarily an inhibition in our ability to fulfil those responsibilities.
	There has been much discussion about the operational independence of the police, but that cannot be interpreted as being a shield against accountability. The police are accountable for their actions to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary is, in turn, accountable to this House of Commons. It is also said—I have said it myself—that we are not above the law, but that does not mean that we can be subject to illegality. It does not mean that we can be treated differently from other citizens. Equality before the law is a matter not only of responsibility, but of right, duty and privilege.
	It is profoundly disappointing that the motion does not meet what is required. The remit is far too narrow—this House is surely entitled to investigate the whole circumstances surrounding this unfortunate affair. The time scale it sets out is risible; can one imagine what the public's response will be when we tell them that this important Committee, which is made up of seven wise men and women, has met and appointed a Chairman, but has then adjourned indefinitely? That is a real indication of hands-on government; we will be laughed out of court if that is how we proceed, but that is what the motion will impose upon us.
	If the Committee chooses to sit in private, it will do so in exercise of its judgment. The whole point about your being encouraged—permitted, if you like—to pick seven experienced Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, is that they will have exactly the judgment and experience to know when it is necessary to meet in private. The amendment asserts that the Committee would be subject to our normal rule of sub judice.
	The motion's third defect is that it would restrict your discretion, Mr Speaker. What is the point of that? Why do the Government believe that they must have a majority in this matter? I never thought I would hear myself make this next point. When Opposition Members get concerned about civil liberties, the often repeated remark we hear is, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." If the Government have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from seven independent Members of Parliament chosen by you, Mr. Speaker.
	In this matter, the Leader of the House has special responsibilities. She is a Government Minister, but she also has responsibilities to the House, so I ask her to reflect on something. It is generally accepted that John Biffen and Robin Cook, both, sadly, no longer with us, were the epitome—the best examples—of Leader of the House in recent times. What would John Biffen and Robin Cook have done in similar circumstances? I believe that they would have asserted the independence of this House of Commons.
	This motion's purpose is to deal not only with the issues of remit, membership and the ludicrous imposition in relation to time, but to provide Members of this House of Commons with an opportunity to assert their independence and that of the House. They could, as an alternative, subordinate themselves to the Government, but we will give them the opportunity to vote for independence.

Michael Howard: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), and I entirely endorse what he said.
	I hope to be brief and I want to make just two points. First, I endorse what was said by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and most eloquently by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) about the differences between what Mr. Speaker said on Wednesday and what the Government motion provides for today. I do not need to go through the differences.
	The Government are inviting the House to overrule Mr. Speaker. That is the long and the short of it. What Mr. Speaker said on Wednesday about the terms of reference of the inquiry, its composition and its length was right, whereas the provisions of the Government motion are wrong. They seek to overrule Mr. Speaker, and I cannot recall an occasion when the independence of the Speaker and the independence of this House have been drawn into sharper focus. The House has an opportunity this afternoon to stand up for its liberties and independence. I hope that it will do so by voting for the amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife.
	My second point is that in his statement to the London Assembly last Wednesday, acting commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said that the Metropolitan Police Service was called in by the Cabinet Office
	"to investigate suspected criminal offences in relation to a substantial series of leaks from the Home Office potentially involving national security and the impeding of the efficient and effective conduct of government."
	I particularly want to draw the House's attention to that last phrase. So far as I am aware, it has never been a criminal offence to impede the efficient and effective conduct of government and nor should it be. I do not think that the police should have been called into investigate on that basis, and they should not have agreed to do so.
	I have written to Mr. Ian Johnston, the chief constable of the British Transport police who is carrying out an inquiry into the police's handling of the matter, and asked him to consider this point in his inquiry. I have written to the Minister in charge at the Cabinet Office to ask who in the Cabinet Office called in the police on that extraordinary basis and whether the Minister authorised or knew of that action.

Michael Howard: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point to which there is no answer.
	What has happened over the past 10 days or so diminishes our democracy and the rights, not of ourselves as Members of the House, but of our constituents who send us here.

Frank Field: I am pleased to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I promise to be even briefer than he was. I rise to support the motion tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for two reasons.
	I do not think that the initial stages of the debate went as well as they should have done. We hope that our constituents have some interest in what we do in this place, but they would have found it impossible to understand the first three quarters of an hour of our deliberations. It was wholly proper for the Government to put a time limit on the debate and we should have accepted it and got on with the debate.
	A consensus is emerging from the debate and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House is listening to it. If she responds to it, we may all come out of the debate with real credit. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) pointed out, one of the problems is that many of our constituents, and at least some of us, are confused about what our privileges are and why we have them. It would be not only useful for them to be set out again but, as the shadow Leader of the House said, it might be good to see whether we should move to a statutory basis for those privileges. Their purpose is not to boost us and our egos but—we hope—to allow us to carry out our duties in a way that furthers the interests of our constituents.
	My second point is that the motion tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife manages to divide the two issues that concern the Government. The first issue, with which I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House agrees, is that we need to take note of what our privileges are, why we have them and how we should protect them.
	Running alongside that, however, is the question of whether there was something different about the leak to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), and I hope I shall not cross the line in what I am about to say. I draw a distinction from my experience. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time but an outsider, so I should have been treated differently—as I was.
	The previous Labour Government had a commitment to introduce child benefit. They decided to rat on the commitment, and papers were leaked to me showing that members of the Cabinet were not being totally truthful to one another. The Government threatened all sorts of things, through the Official Secrets Act and so on, but were far too sensible to go down that route. The Bill was not only introduced but became an Act. In addition, the Government spent huge resources on child benefit and, in the general election, said that it was one of their greatest achievements, so sometimes leaks can have a very good effect on Governments.
	At some stage, the House needs to look at the circumstances of the leak relating to the hon. Member for Ashford, which I read about in the papers. My really good Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) says that he would love everything to be put on rice paper. I must say that if I got a whole series of leaks from someone whom, it is alleged, I had employed, and with whom I had contact, I as a Member of Parliament might question what was going on, particularly if I thought that that person might wish to further their career in the Opposition party. I beg Opposition Members to consider that point; it is not the usual suspects who are expressing concern about the issue. I do not usually regard myself as one of the usual suspects, and I am concerned about the matter. I make that point because I imagine that many outsiders following the debate will be concerned about the issue. It will not go away; it can come up in different circumstances. I think that it should be pursued.
	I make the following plea to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House: the shadow Leader of the House has said that she is withdrawing the Opposition's official amendment, so there is a chance for the House to come together on the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. If we did that, we might just scoop some credit from our constituents for this affair.

David Davis: I want to raise two set of points about the proposal. I support amendment (e), tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), and I agree with everything he said in his excellent speech.
	Everybody agrees that nobody is above the law—not Members of Parliament, the police or the Government. I will not spend long discussing the police; I just point out the coruscating comments made about them by Geoffrey Robertson QC last week, which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) reiterated. As for Members of Parliament, I cannot find an example in the past century of a Member of Parliament who has escaped the law, or proper prosecution, as a result of privilege, and I do not expect that to change as a result of what we do today.
	I come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman); I am sorry to say that he is not present. [Hon. Members: "He's over there."] Good; he may want to pay attention, because he said something that is completely wrong. When talking about the sequence of events that led to today's debate, he said that it was incumbent on police to arrest Galley for what most of us would view as a disciplinary offence. Frankly, I find that use of the offence of misconduct in public office very worrying. I received an e-mail today—perfectly legally—from a recently retired senior police officer, who said the following about misconduct in public office:
	"This is a catch-all or fall-back, flavour of the month, supposed offence that the Met, Thames Valley and at least one other police force"
	often pursue. He continued:
	"They have used it to contrive allegations of criminal conduct against a large number of public servants. Overwhelmingly, those investigated have faced years of debilitating investigation that has damaged their lives as well as their careers and the lives of their families but have faced no criminal charges of any kind or, even, disciplinary charges related to the supposed misconduct investigated.
	In the vary rare convictions for the supposed serious criminal offence, the sentences have been the lightest tap on the wrist and all costs have had to be met by the Crown."
	He goes on to assert that more than 50 civil servants have faced that process.
	I do not know whether or not that is true, but I must tell the Leader of the House that the Government should look at this carefully. If our Government or, more accurately, our police authorities are using that law as a weapon of intimidation that almost never comes to fruition, the country should be ashamed of that.

David Davis: There were Members on this side of the House who criticised that action at the time: two wrongs do not make a right.
	Returning to the point that I was making, not only did we receive that piece of evidence from a retired police officer but, only two weeks ago, we heard about the case of the journalist, Ms Murrer. The judge dismissed the case against her, saying that vast amounts of legal writ from Britain and Europe state that it should never have been brought because of protection under articles 9 and 10. If a journalist can receive that protection, surely a Member of Parliament can do so. That point is of some note when we look at the interpretation of privilege by ourselves and by the authorities under two laws passed in the past couple of decades. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, for example, specifically protected editors and the files and records of editors and journalists. We did not give that protection to ourselves, because we thought that we already had it. Similarly, when the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, to which the Leader of the House referred, was passed, we gave protection to whistleblowers who approached journalists. There is no such protection for whistleblowers who approach Members of Parliament. That is an absolute flaw in our laws, and it must be put right. It cannot be put right by a Standing Order, but it must be put right at some point in future.
	I wish to read a brief quotation to the House:
	"The privilege of freedom of speech enjoyed by Members of Parliament is in truth the privilege of their constituents. It is secured to Members not for their personal benefit but to enable them to discharge the functions of their office without fear of prosecution, civil or criminal."
	Those are the words of the House of Commons Privileges Committee in 1939, ruling on the Duncan Sandys case. I remind the House that he was threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act not simply because he had received highly sensitive information about military weaknesses in the country but because he refused to help the authorities to identify the source of the leak. The Privileges Committee ruled in his favour, and ruled that he could not be prosecuted.
	We have to create a Committee today, hopefully under the amendment that I support, that will address that issue. Let us remind ourselves of what happens elsewhere in Europe. I am the last person to draw European analogies in the House of Commons, but the simple truth is that those countries that have had totalitarian Governments in the past invariably have absolute privilege, including protection from arrest. A German MP cannot be arrested without a motion from the Bundestag, and that arises from previous abuse and intimidation of German Members of Parliament. I am not recommending such privilege here, as that can in turn be abused. But what we have is one of the weakest sets of protections of democracy, as they should be called, in Europe.
	What should we ask the Committee to do? What should allow the police to go through the files and data of a Member of Parliament and, therefore, of his constituents, and not just of his constituents, but of legitimate whistleblowers who come to the Member of Parliament in the public interest? First, the crime should be serious and specific. It should not be minor—we should be followed to catch us on speeding offences so that the police can go through our files. The charge should not be "conspiring to commit misconduct in public office", which is vague and a general catch-all. That should not be acceptable to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
	Secondly, there should be solid evidence. If the MP has not been charged—my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) still has not been charged, and I do not think the young man involved has been charged either—that almost certainly means obtaining explicit approval from a Law Officer: the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
	Thirdly, and very importantly—a point that we have not addressed before—the charge should not relate to the Member of Parliament's legitimate parliamentary activity. The charge in the Duncan Sandys' case was serious disclosure of official secrets about military preparedness, yet it was ruled an appropriate parliamentary action, risky though it was. History proved that judgment right. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford did not disclose anything so sensitive, and everything he did disclose was entirely proper in pursuit of his duties in holding the Government to account.
	Finally, the intrusion on the constituent's privacy must be necessary, not some further fishing expedition to see what the police can find. What will be the feelings of every whistleblower who speaks to a Member of Parliament if there is a fishing expedition? Again, that can be assessed only by an appropriate Law Officer.
	The assault on privileges that we are discussing today is serious and, if we are not careful, it will set a very serious precedent for the future. No intrusion for a minor offence should be allowed. If we allow that, it will turn out to be disastrous. It will fatally undermine the last vestiges of power in the House. It will lead to intimidation of decent whistleblowers who are standing up for what they see as the public interest. It may not quite make speaking the truth illegal, but it will make finding out the truth illegal.

Kenneth Clarke: I am one of those Members, together with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who put my name to the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). I like to feel that there is a consensus growing for an approach on that basis that will give much more effect to Mr. Speaker's statement last week, allow for a quicker inquiry, and allow us to look straight away, in proper order, at some of the issues of principle rather than the details of continuing police investigations. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) that this should be approached in a non-partisan way. I usually enjoy the party rancour in this place, and realise that it can often be a useful way of checking the Government, but on this occasion it is totally unsuitable. I hope, as I see discussions taking place on the Government Front Bench, that even at this late stage there might be some reconsideration.
	I ask Members to imagine what would happen if the two principal parties had been on the opposite sides of the House when this incident occurred and the Met police got it into their heads to start proceeding in this way. I regret to say—I will not name names—that some Back Benchers on my side of the House would make a speech like that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and dutifully rally round, saying, "This is a routine issue—what are we wasting our time for?" and defending his Front Benchers. I think that we would be hard-pressed to find many Labour Members, if they were sitting on the Opposition Benches, who were not beside themselves with rage if a shadow Home Office spokesman had been arrested in these circumstances and treated in this way.
	I do not want to personalise this, but I first met the Leader of the House when she was the legal adviser to the National Council for Civil Liberties. That is when I first had dealings with her, although she probably does not remember. She was a pretty feisty, radical lawyer in those days, and I have to tell her that she would not conceivably have made the speech then that she made an hour or two ago—she would have been leading demonstrations outside about the behaviour of the Government in confining matters in this way.
	I realise how annoying leaks are. They are not always heroic, although one can find the heroic examples of Churchill, Sandys, and so on. They cause great distrust, break up the teamwork in an office, and cause great annoyance to Ministers, as I know. In fact, most leaks come from other Ministers and their political advisers, or are authorised by them. The civil service always gets very indignant when leak inquiries are set up, because that is where they usually come from. I well remember the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) getting leaks about child benefit that he shared with me, as an Opposition spokesman, from time to time. I am sure that those leaks came from Barbara Castle, or with her authority. Similar examples have multiplied in this Government over the past 10 years.
	We addressed the whole matter because of the problems that we had over the criminal law when foolish decisions were made to prosecute Clive Ponting and Sarah Tisdall, who had been leaking material from the Ministry of Defence on security issues, and one of them was acquitted by a jury on the public interest defence. We decided that the Official Secrets Act and the panoply of the relevant law should relate only to national security. The law was changed precisely to avoid the outrage that occurred on this occasion. We cannot anticipate all the inquiries, but by now the police or the Government would have briefed us on any aspect of this matter that would support a stronger view being taken. No crime has been committed; it is a disciplinary offence inside the Department. Nobody is going to be prosecuted. If any prosecution is brought, it will fail because the public interest defence is absolutely self-evident. Indeed, there will be outrage in this House if a prosecution succeeds, and that should have been apparent from the word go.
	I do not know what the timing of the debate is, so I shall try to be brief. I do not think that anybody here is in favour of totalitarian government. The partisan stuff on both sides is quite absurd; no one on this side is running spies inside the Government and no one on the Government Front Bench is advocating a police state. At the moment, we have a House of Commons where everybody is in favour of parliamentary democracy, which I could not have said 20 years ago when the Militant Tendency had members in our midst. I think that we are pretty safe now.
	We are, however, in danger of being led by an increasing air of carelessness and indifference to basic rules. We all respect the rule of law, but sometimes we do not pay too much attention to it in some of the legislation that comes before the House. Anger, rage and unfavourable press comment always affect Ministers, but we now have an intolerance of dissent and an inability to take those brickbats that has led to a minor version of Henry II's expressions of rage about Thomas à Becket. In this case, it must have been, "Who will find and dispense with this turbulent priest for me?" At every stage, as somebody said earlier, people should have thought better. The permanent secretary should not have called the Cabinet Office in, and certainly should have stopped them talking to the police. In her statement, the Home Secretary said she agreed with the view of Sir David Normington that it was necessary to request police assistance. I am sure that she regrets that bitterly. She was already in trouble with leaks, but when she agreed to that, he got her into a lot more trouble.
	I am worried about the Met, given their behaviour in the so-called "cash for honours" case, and the case of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). When the police are called in they should not think, "Here's a good public interest case. We'll get a lot of good publicity out of this; it'll be a good high profile thing." They should have said to the Cabinet Office, "This is not a matter for us. Go away and sort it out inside the Department itself."
	When the matter came to this House, we were not prepared for it. Instead of letting the police in to search an office, somebody should have made inquiries. It has been revealed that there was no clear process enabling that to be done. Of course, if someone arrived and said that a Member was being investigated for a normal criminal offence, I would expect the Serjeant at Arms to give the police officer in question the keys, to send someone to escort him and his officers, and to arrange for them to be provided with tea and sandwiches while they carried out the necessary searches. What if they inquired and were told that there was no warrant, or if they had inquired and were told, "This is all about leaks from the Home Office"? We need to re-establish processes whereby in those circumstances the Serjeant at Arms, without hesitation, shows them to the door and gets them dispatched.
	What will happen if we duck everything today, and accept a Government motion plainly designed to kick this into the long grass? They believe that the best thing to do is to get the matter beyond Christmas, let the police spin it out a bit, and hope that it will all die away, as it did in the case of the right hon. Member for Neath. No one will hear any more about it because the fuss will have died down by the time a report comes out. We need an inquiry now. We need one that does not have an in-built Government majority, which is independent and which advises the House on how we deliver our scoundrels to justice while ensuring that our more diligent Members are protected when they carry out their work.

John Denham: The important thing is that we maintain our investment in science and research, continue to develop organisations such as the Technology Strategy Board, and continue to recognise those parts of the economy in which we have a particular strategic strength and advantage. That means working with those areas of the economy, whether through investment in innovation and research, or through the development of skills.
	So far as Formula 1 is concerned, it is well recognised that there is a triangle of particular expertise in this country, which goes beyond any one particular race team. It has specialist companies within it, and it has links to wider manufacturers. The hon. Gentleman asked me to look at what is happening in the Formula 1 industry, and I am more than happy to do so, but I am quite clear that our commitment to investment in research and innovation lies at the heart of creating the conditions in which such activity can continue.
	Train to Gain is not the only issue on which the Government have listened to business. As everyone will have heard, business said that it found the skills landscape too complex, so we are implementing the simplification proposals of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. We are merging the Train to Gain brokerage service with Business Link. Employers asked us to cut bureaucracy in apprenticeships, and we did. They asked us to ensure that high-quality employer training could be accredited, and we did.
	We know that as we respond to the downturn, we need to make further changes. We have already announced additional funding from the European social fund to support skills advice and training for those who lose their jobs, or fear that they may do so. I want to ensure that more of the £5 billion annual investment in further education and skills helps people to get back into work. I want more people to get support before redundancies occur or short-term contracts come to an end.
	Where a business moves on to short-time working, there will be more scope to offer free, short-term and intensive training for employees. I would urge any company, large or small, that is considering short-time working to follow the example of Nissan and JCB, and to talk to their local further education college or the Learning and Skills Council about what training they can offer their staff during that down-time. When redundancies or the shedding of contract labour is pre-announced, colleges and training providers need more flexibility to provide training support before jobs are lost.
	The changes underline why further change to the organisation of the skills system is needed as we move towards greater responsiveness to employers, greater flexibility in the skills system and greater flexibility for providers. Under the Conservative party, post-16 education and training was a disaster. The Conservatives rightly gave colleges independent incorporated status, but then denied them funding and support. By 1997, in the confusion created by the training and enterprise councils, FE spending had been cut in real terms in the previous four years. There was no capital budget. The National Audit Office said that some FE buildings were not fit for purpose, and only half the people who started a course completed it.
	The establishment of the Learning and Skills Council enabled the Labour Government to transform the scene. Completion rates are now 80 per cent., and that work is concentrated on the most useful qualifications. Investment in skills has risen by 50 per cent., and we are halfway through a £4.3 billion capital programme. The success of the LSC means that we can change to meet changing challenges. In 16-to-19 education, the challenges are securing proper, coherent planning of the curriculum; the raising of the participation age, which the Conservative party opposes; and taking clear responsibility to further reduce the number of those not in education, employment or training.

John Denham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The overseas students who come to study here are not only welcome but are an important part of our education system. They enrich the institutions to which they come to study. It is fundamentally the investment that we have made as a Government in higher education that enables that to be true, and we need to maintain our commitment to proper investment in higher education and not repeat the mistakes that were made in the not-too-distant past but which too many people appear to have forgotten.
	Most businesses regard investment in training as investment in their own productivity. Employers spend £38 billion a year on training, which is many times more than the Government themselves spend, so time to train goes with the grain of what good businesses already do. I believe that asking for time to train will often become part of an employee's annual review process, and it will help to instil a culture of learning in every workplace. Apprenticeships, too, are an important way of unlocking talent and building skills in the work force. Ten years ago, apprenticeships were close to collapse. Only 75,000 people started them, and most of them did not finish. We as a Government have rescued apprenticeships. Last year, about 180,000 people started apprenticeships, and we are on target for 130,000 completions a year by 2010-11. Apprenticeships are back. Expanding the number of apprenticeships will help the economy to emerge from the recession stronger.
	The children, skills and learning Bill will give all suitably-qualified young people a legal right to an apprenticeship from 2013, and it underlines our commitment to entitle young people who have the ability and desire to take an apprenticeship to do so. The Bill will strengthen apprenticeships by establishing a coherent legal framework that will define the programme and set the standard. We believe that fulfilling our apprenticeship commitments will lead to around one in five young people starting an apprenticeship, with further growth for older workers, too. To support this entitlement, we will, through the Bill, establish a new national apprenticeship service, which was called for a couple of years ago by the Lords Select Committee. For the first time ever, we will have a dedicated service for apprenticeships.
	Investment in apprenticeships will rise to more than £1 billion next year, but we need to take further measures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said earlier, we need a big drive to increase the number of apprenticeships offered in the public sector. We have already set targets for central Whitehall Departments. Radical new models of supporting apprenticeships, such as the London Apprenticeship Company, a community partnership including the City of Westminster college and Westminster Kingsway college, are being considered. That partnership intends to recruit apprentices who will be made available as a flexible work force to employers and other host companies. We have also set up a matching service for construction apprentices whose employers cannot keep them on, to place them in new employment and training. We are looking at developing a similar service in other sectors.
	The Government need to use the leverage of public procurement. When we use taxpayers' money to build a new college, school or hospital, we do not want just to create new buildings. We want to help build the skills base of the construction industry. Following the announcement in the pre-Budget report, whenever Departments and their agencies let new construction contracts, they are now encouraged to consider making it a requirement that the successful contractors have apprentices as a proportion of the project work force. All successful contractors in Building Colleges for the Future, worth £2.3 billion, are now required to have a formal training plan for the project work force and provide access to apprenticeship places. We will build on this approach in other sectors, hopefully including IT, where Government will spend nearly £14 billion this year.
	The Department for Communities and Local Government is also taking action on construction. The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill will strengthen local democracy, promote regional and local economic development, and ensure fairness in construction contracts. It will improve current legislation on commercial contracts to provide a fairer system, and more cash flow for construction companies. The legislation will be especially important for small and medium-sized enterprises, which play a key role in local economies. The Bill will transfer greater power and responsibility to regions, local authorities and citizens in times of economic hardship. It is important that decisions can be taken by those who are closest to the issues, and the Bill contains important measures to encourage a more diverse range of people to take up civic positions, strengthening local democracy. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), will address many of those topics in more detail when he winds up the debate.
	As I said at the outset, the Government are determined to do whatever is necessary to support families and businesses through the downturn, and to ensure that we invest properly and wisely now for the upturn so that this country comes through stronger, fairer and more competitive—

David Willetts: Members in all parts of the House who have an interest in skills and training and housing have had an unusual number of changes to the timing of the debate. We all understood the passions of the House on the very different matter that we have just debated. The present debate was originally planned for Thursday, and we are at last having it now, until 11 pm. One of the compensations of holding the debate today is that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was not able to join us on the Front Bench on Thursday. He had a commitment to take part in the Moulton village pantomime in his constituency, "Flinderella", in the starring role of Baron of Boston. We are grateful that he is able to join us after his theatrical triumph last week.
	Contrary to the extraordinary straw man so savagely attacked time after time by the Secretary of State, the Opposition fully understand the scale of the crisis facing our country as the economy heads into recession, and we fully understand the need for serious measures to tackle the crisis. The first thing to do is to recognise what is going wrong with skills and training in our country. The Secretary of State was far too complacent about that. He spoke, as he so often does, of the extraordinary success in the number of apprenticeships, but the number at level 3—which is what apprenticeships are in many advanced western countries, not level 2; advanced apprenticeships, as they are now called—has been falling in each of the past seven years. The number has fallen from 112,00 to 110,000 to 105,000 and in 2006-07 it was down to 97,000. The Secretary of State failed to engage with the problem that there is a decline in the number of level 3 apprenticeships, compensated for only by an increase in the number of level 2 apprenticeships, which would not even have been called apprenticeships in the past.

David Willetts: I absolutely wish to see more apprenticeships across the public sector. One of the reasons why I tabled the parliamentary questions that showed how few apprenticeships there were across central Government was to try to get the Government to do something about the scandal of how low that level is.
	Let me repeat again for the benefit of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) that we want more people of all ages to be in apprenticeships. We have practical proposals to increase the number of people in apprenticeships; what we have from the Secretary of State is rhetoric without any explanation of how he will achieve the ambitious targets and legal requirements that he proposes. That is the history of his party's approach to apprenticeships—an endless stream of ambitious targets, none of which are ever met. They are not met because the Government have not made the practical proposals that we have made to ensure that they are spread. That is the problem that the Secretary of State's proposals face.
	I turn briefly to the subject of universities, about which the Secretary of State spoke. The Government have failed to achieve their apprenticeship targets, the Learning and Skills Council has failed and Train to Gain has failed. On top of all that, this is the last Session before the Government face the truth of their failure to achieve their target for university participation, which, we should recall, was that 50 per cent. of young people should participate in university education by 2010.

Sarah Teather: The rules of the House dictate that Liberal Democrats get just one Front-Bench contribution during the day's debate on the Gracious Speech. Bearing that in mind, and given current economic circumstances, we felt that housing was the most pressing of the three important issues grouped together for debate today. That is why I, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for housing, am speaking on behalf of my colleagues—it is not just because I miss debating with the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). I have say, however, that, a year on, it does not seem that the debate has moved on a great deal— [Interruption.] I am making no comment on that, but explaining why I—rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), who shadows the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills—am responding to the debate.
	I am relieved to note that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was in his place for the opening speeches, despite his pantomime —[Interruption.] There is obviously a comic genius on the Government Front Bench. It is a little odd that the Conservative housing spokesperson is not in his place today, especially when I thought that the Conservatives had actually chosen the particular days for these debates. I know that they have been changed, but it seems a little strange. I do not know whether the Conservative Whips fail to communicate well with their own Members or whether this subject has just dropped down the priority list during the week.
	The housing crisis in this country is not new and it is not merely a product of the recession. Waiting lists for affordable housing to rent have been rising steadily over the last decade in which Labour has been in power and now stand at around 1.7 million families. In common with those of most other Members, my advice surgeries are filled with desperate families struggling to get decent accommodation they can afford. There are families suffering overcrowding and families whose children have nowhere to play, let alone do their homework; there are families whose children are sharing the parent's bed because another sibling is already sleeping on the sofa; there are families for whom overcrowding is causing condensation, which has led in turn to mould so that the children all have asthma—or, even worse, the whole family has tuberculosis. That may sound like Victorian Britain, but it is happening in new Labour Britain today. This problem is not new; it is just getting worse.
	About 90,000 children live in temporary accommodation in England, and two thirds of those live in London. In some boroughs such as Haringey, one in seven of the area's children live in temporary accommodation; in Brent, the comparable figure is one in 10. One of my constituents, who is almost my age, has spent her entire life in temporary accommodation. She was born into temporary accommodation and is now raising her own children in temporary accommodation; the repeated moves and long-term uncertainty have blighted a whole generation.
	This country's housing crisis has been and continues to be about supply and demand, and it affects everyone in the chain: it prices homes out of reach for first-time buyers, it prices renting out of reach even for some families on average earnings, and it puts huge downward pressure on those at the bottom of the earnings table who are forced to queue hopelessly for social housing. What is new is the impact of the recession on those who were previously secure in their homes: families who could afford to pay the rent but who, now out of work, find themselves looking for emergency help from their council; and families owning their own property whose circumstances changed so that they find themselves falling behind with their mortgage payments.

Sarah Teather: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Part of the problem with the current housing allowance system is that it often slow to kick in. I certainly see constituents in that difficult position and I would be very surprised if other hon. Members across the country did not see it, too. It takes a long time to kick in and a long time to be administered, particularly if there are any subsequent changes in circumstances.
	As my hon. Friend said, there has been considerable debate about what to do when people lose their jobs or become sick, but many people who own their own homes may find themselves in difficulty just as easily if they finish their fixed rate mortgage period and find they cannot move to a cheaper deal because they are now in negative equity or because they have inadequate equity in their property for the new climate of lending. The immediate and pressing danger is that we will see many more families seeking emergency help, which will be a disaster for them, and near impossible for councils to manage.
	The Council of Mortgage Lenders has predicted that repossessions may rise to 75,000 next year—a figure that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) predicted some time ago. The Government have taken positive steps in trying to head off large-scale repossessions, but there is a great deal more concrete work that they should do in this area.
	On the surface, last week's announcements on interest holidays were very positive, but as always with such headline grabbers, the devil will be in the detail. The Minister for Housing, who is not in her place today, has suggested that just 9,000 families may be eligible for this scheme— [Interruption.] I see, of course, that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) who shares responsibility for housing, is in his place. There are so many Ministers, but so few names that we are allowed to name in the House!
	As I was saying, just 9,000 families may be eligible for the scheme, making it a drop in the ocean in the bigger picture of repossessions, and it will leave 66,000 families out in the cold. Similarly, it is not yet clear what the criteria for eligibility will be. Will families need to be in receipt of benefits to be eligible? Will it apply only to mortgages or will it also apply to second charges? Will the same rules apply to families with two earners as with the income support for mortgage interest scheme, where if the main earner loses their job the family is ineligible to claim if the other partner earns anything at all, even if they just work part-time and earn very little? We certainly know that the scheme will not apply to those whose mortgages are not with the main eight lenders, meaning that around one in three mortgage holders are not eligible.
	I expect the Government to respond by saying that this is what the pre-action protocol is for, but while all of the sentiment in the pre-action protocol is welcome, as is the stipulation that it must apply to all lenders, it is not clear who will be policing the protocol. It does not give the courts powers, for example, to throw out a case if lenders have not followed the protocol, or to issue a fine.
	If the Government want to give the courts teeth to enforce good practice on repossessions, they will have to be prepared to update our outdated mortgage law. It baffles me that they are unwilling to do so, and they had a prime opportunity in the Banking Bill in the previous Session. My colleagues tabled amendments to that effect, which the Government rejected. The Government also had a perfect opportunity in last week's Gracious Speech. Again, they chose not to take it. Mortgage law is mired in its common law origins in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is based on the mortgage contract, so it is weighted in favour of the lender, giving the courts only limited powers to intervene. If the Government want to give courts powers to intervene, they will have to legislate to make that possible. Surely now is the perfect time to drag mortgage law into the 21st century.
	It is unacceptable that lenders have the right to sell a property over a borrower's head without first going through the courts, for example. Certainly, there have been times when that has happened. In a classic case earlier this year, known as the Horsham case, the lender exercised its power of sale with the borrower still in possession. The new owner then brought proceedings to evict the borrower as a trespasser, and the borrower has lost any claim to equity as a result. The case appeared to give the green light to lenders to circumvent the courts' powers altogether by exercising power of sale. Foreclosure, although little used, is still available. It enables a lender to obtain an order for possession, but in doing so extinguishes the borrower's equity of redemption, so that the lender keeps the entire proceeds of the sale. It is hard to justify that remedy having any place in modern mortgage law.

Sarah Teather: The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) says from a sedentary position that the Government have done something. They have announced some money, but we are asking for greater front-loading. They have not freed up councils to borrow so that they can build. The money continues to go through housing associations, so councils, which must pick up the pieces when everything falls apart, have little power to address the problem. If they are to be able to borrow to build, the Government need to make changes to the stability of their income. They need to end the process whereby one council tenant in one area subsidies a council tenant a long way away in another borough. The subsidy should come from general taxation, so that councils can be sure of their income and of right-to-buy capital housing receipts. That would enable them to borrow in the same way as housing associations.

Lindsay Roy: It is a great privilege to have been elected to this Chamber and to have the opportunity this evening to make my maiden speech.
	The traditions of this Chamber bring many benefits—I am told that this is a prime education forum. Had I been making an address in another educational context, Members would have been subjected to the obligatory PowerPoint presentation, sometimes described as an overhead on steroids. The four weeks since the by-election have been frenetic—"whirlwind" would be a euphemistic term to describe my induction. I thank many Members, across parties, for their camaraderie, forbearance and directions on meeting a lost soul around the parliamentary estate. Not once have I been directed to the wrong Lobby—yet.
	During the campaign, I was asked how a novice would cope in Parliament. I assured the questioner that I had no aspirations to become Leader of the Opposition, seeking to lead the country—and that, as a head teacher, if I could cope with 1,500 boisterous youngsters, I could surely survive here. That was, of course, before my first experience of Prime Minister's Question Time.
	I plan to contribute directly to this interesting debate in due course, but first, in line with tradition, I wish to refer to my predecessor in the House, the late John MacDougall. That is particularly appropriate and particularly poignant, because today, as we remember John, would have been his 61st birthday.
	John was a first-class constituency Member who earned respect in all the communities in central Fife. He was a man of integrity, a man of compassion and a man of good humour, who had high aspirations for his constituency. He believed that education was a personal engine for development. Indeed, as leader of Fife council he introduced universal nursery education for four-year-olds long before other parts of the United Kingdom. He lobbied hard to secure investment in skills for the world of work beyond school and for work force training, a theme to which I shall return later. He also championed the interests of the elderly in our communities, liberating senior citizens in enabling them to access public transport at no personal cost.
	John successfully led a campaign against the break-up of the ancient kingdom of Fife during local government reorganisation, recognising the dividends of a united kingdom. He enthused about the benefit that accrued to this constituency, and to Scotland, through its remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, as a passionate and patriotic Scot, he emphasised that the saltire was not the sole preserve of one political party. The Scottish National party has a tendency to claim it as its own, but he reminded Scots regularly, as I do—no heckling!—that it belongs to all Scots, the vast majority of whom have no appetite for separation.
	However, it is at times like this that we must remember that there are more important things than politics. John's life was tragically cut short by an asbestos-related lung condition, mesothelioma.
	Sadly, John has not been alone in suffering from industry-related diseases in the constituency. In 2006, in his maiden speech, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) warned of a national mesothelioma hot spot. Working conditions in the mines and the dockyards have had a devastating impact on many lives in our constituencies It is to the great credit of this Government that compensation schemes have been put in place to support people with work-related and debilitating diseases. Those schemes have been well received and generally successful, and I am aware that Ministers are currently trying to ensure that all cases are dealt with in a timely fashion and with minimum bureaucracy. However, while the legal process by and large has been handled in a very responsible fashion, concerns remain about a handful of legal firms that have exploited the situation to their distinct benefit. Ministers have also been tackling that issue in a serious and determined manner, trying to ensure that maximum dividends go to the people who have been so adversely affected.
	Over the past two years, knowing full well the seriousness of his condition, John demonstrated outstanding courage and commitment to his constituents. He was still active in the last two weeks of his life, and the House is all the poorer as a result of his untimely passing.
	In characteristic fashion, John's wife Cathy is currently trying to set up a trust in John's name to undertake further research on asbestos-related diseases.
	John's perennial quest to improve the lives of others and seek fairness and social justice is also mine. I hope that I can live up to the challenge in the same way as John, and go on to inspire people and enhance their life prospects.
	Like John, I have spent all my working life in Fife, and most of it in my constituency. Let me explain to Members who are not aware of the location that Fife is on the east coast of Scotland, south of Dundee and north of Edinburgh. The largest community is Glenrothes, a new town that was established in 1948 to tap the huge coal reserves at Rothes colliery. However, after major mine flooding Glenrothes had to diversify very quickly, and soon attracted a diverse range of new industries and businesses.
	Many other smaller but equally important communities make up the constituency, many of which were devastated in the 1980s as a result of the quick demise of traditional industries. They demonstrate a strong sense of identity. They have proud traditions as caring communities, supporting the weak and vulnerable in society. In my opinion, the boundary commission did a disservice to those many other communities, such as Kinglassie, Cardenden, Leven, Methil, Buckhaven, the Wemyss villages, Windygates, Kennoway, Thornton and Kirkcaldy North, by calling the constituency Glenrothes. I should prefer a constituency title reflecting the composition of the constituency more accurately, and I will pursue that further in due course.
	Members will be interested to know that my constituency neighbour is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Indeed, until recently I was rector, or head teacher, of the Prime Minister's old school—but not, as one reporter commented, the Prime Minister's old head teacher. Had that been the case, I think I would have been in the Guinness Book of Records as a new entrant to the House of Commons in my mid-eighties. However, the change in title from rector to Member of Parliament means that I no longer receive correspondence from other parts of the United Kingdom addressed "Rector of Kirkcaldy high school" and beginning "Dear Reverend"—or, in one case, "Your Eminence".
	Let me assure hon. Members that, contrary to press speculation, I was not approached personally by the Prime Minister to stand as a candidate. I have concrete evidence to substantiate that assertion. When I challenged a reporter about the timing of the alleged early phone call, expecting a day in the week to be cited, she suggested that it had been made just after 8 am. I understand that it is common knowledge that when the Prime Minister telephones early in the morning, it is between 5 am and 6 am at the latest.
	I have taken advice, and have been assured that telling tales out of school does not constitute a leak. I can therefore reveal exclusively that, when at school, the Prime Minister was involved in a very unfortunate cover-up. The Prime Minister was a talented sportsman. His athletics victory in the Fife championships was described in a superb piece of hyperbole. The school magazine editor of the day noted that he had won the 400 yards by "miles". However, the editor later lamented that the Prime Minister had been disqualified because he had worn a rugby shirt over his vest, thereby concealing his number. Clearly the Prime Minister has learned lessons from his school by experience: he has been very open with numbers as the Government have supported people through the current economic downturn, although whether all the numbers would fit on an athletics vest is another matter.
	The Prime Minister also received the leather strap for a misdemeanour at Kirkcaldy high school. I understand that he has no sadistic tendencies, but he does take pleasure in leathering the Opposition. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Can do better.
	Regeneration schemes have brought new opportunities to my constituency. Over the last 10 years, 10,000 jobs have been created in Fife. In my constituency today, that diversity is reflected in well-established businesses such as Tullis Russell, which produces high-quality paper. The energy company npower has just invested £100 million in a biomass plant, thereby reducing the carbon footprint dramatically. Diageo—which, I am sure, is popular with Members here—produces superb Scotch whiskies, and recently won the prestigious national gold award for healthy working lives.
	Raytheon, which operates in the defence industry, is a major high-technology employer, and there are new industries, too: BiFab is in the vanguard of alternative green technology developments, manufacturing platforms for offshore wind turbines and developing structures to harness tidal energy. Incidentally, it cannot praise highly enough the continued support for, and investment in, its extension plans from the Royal Bank of Scotland.
	What do these companies, and the many other successful businesses in my constituency, have in common? They sustain their success through difficult times by being innovative and proactive. In particular, they have anticipated changing market conditions. They have managed change well, they have consulted their work force and, above all, they have invested in people to ensure sustainability, competitiveness and prosperity. In short, they have translated good ideas into effective practice.
	The same challenges lie ahead in politics, especially during what has been described by many as the first financial crisis of the global age. It is often said that vision without action equates to daydreaming, and action without vision inevitably leads to chaos. We live in unprecedented times, with global economic challenges that will influence the lives of all of us, so thank goodness for a Prime Minister and Government with the clear vision to lead us through these demanding times with a well thought-out action plan for the next few years—no heckling, please. This strategic plan should take us through the downturn with minimal impact compared with other countries, and bring stability and a return to growth in the years ahead.
	As a newcomer to Parliament, I have heard nothing to convince me that the Opposition have any viable alternatives—certainly, in my book doing nothing is not an option. Like John MacDougall before me, I emphasise the need to continue to invest in people by enhancing training and professional development. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it is relatively easy during an economic downturn to hit apparently soft targets such as skills training and development. However, if we do not nurture human capacities and unlock the potential of our work force, we will not have a competitive edge as a nation when the upturn comes.
	Lord Leitch of Oakley noted in his recent Carnegie lecture that, in terms of current global economic competitiveness, despite the strengths of the UK's education system, our productivity is distinctly average; he described it as "undistinguished mediocrity". Competitors such as the USA, France and Germany are at least 15 to 20 per cent. ahead in the productivity stakes. This is not about protecting business from change; it is about being proactive in preparing for it.
	In my professional field, I have worked with colleagues to shape the future in education, and I have often used the following anonymous quotation to urge people to try to take ownership of their destiny:
	"Traveller, there is no path; we make the path as we go—on the journey to improvement" .
	In other words, whatever the support, only we—the people in a particular business, community or service—can fix things. A positive attitude, optimism and a can-do mentality are of fundamental importance.
	The Government must be congratulated on their investment in modern apprenticeships. It is through effective leadership and skills training that we will nurture creators of wealth. It is disappointing that the Scottish Executive have not yet made the same commitment to modern apprenticeships north of the border, and I hope that MSP John Park's Bill to extend modern and adult apprenticeships will receive cross-party support in Holyrood, thereby ensuring that Scots youngsters have the same opportunities as those in the rest of the UK.
	We must do more, however, to bridge the academic-vocational divide, and ensure parity of esteem for vocational qualifications and extend the scope of vocational degrees. For too long, they have been perceived as the poor relation, but such qualifications will be critical in reinvigorating our economy. We must do more, too, in targeting training to future employment opportunities, and arrange that training is demand-led. As a matter of priority, we must do more to address the challenges faced by a small but significant cohort of our population who are not functionally literate and numerate. To be world class and highly competitive in the global marketplace, upskilling must be a key national objective, and this Government have extended their commitment to guide and facilitate such progress.
	For politicians, and for business, this shared skills agenda demands continuing priority, passion and perseverance. Quite simply, we cannot afford to fall behind; we need to unlock the vast reserves of human potential, and to build a fairer and more prosperous society. It is imperative, particularly during these difficult economic times, that we invest in people, look forward with optimism, talk up the successes and focus on the things that really matter.
	In conclusion, I return to the examples of best practice cited earlier from my constituency, both in business and social investment. For the future of this great country, the drive to enhance economic and social skills must be relentless as we strive to improve the life prospects and chances of our constituents. As a former rector, I have spent years leading other learners, but have had to demonstrate throughout my professional career that I am a leading learner myself. The last few weeks have been challenging and I have been on a steep learning curve. This applies not only to Parliament, but on the doorstep.
	When canvassing, we see life "in the raw". In the later part of the campaign, I met a lady who was obviously somewhat intoxicated. Aware of party political interest in happy hours and excessive alcohol consumption—I must make it clear that of course I am not referring specifically to Members—I asked how many drinks she had had, to which she replied, "Son, I'm an alcoholic, not an accountant."
	I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I also appreciate the words of reassurance and encouragement received from many Members. "Don't worry", they said, "it will be straightforward—and not all will be listening anyway, and some might be asleep. It is not a daunting experience." I can assure Members that it is, although I understand that few acknowledge that this is the case until the experience is over.
	Finally, I have had the privilege of leading two large successful secondary schools, and I think that it is entirely appropriate that I conclude by citing their mottos. The first echoes the theme of my speech. It comes from Inverkeithing high school—"Grow by Choice". The second summarises my commitment to this Parliament and to my constituents: "I will strive to do my utmost." Now, where have we heard that before?

David Anderson: My hon. Friend makes an apt point—that is exactly what I am talking about. We need input from people in different ways. The case for Nissan is different from the case for Honda or for Toyota. Right around the area, however, feeder factories may not be able to survive, unlike Nissan which, together with other big companies, can batten down the hatches. Companies that serve them, however, might not be able to do that. Part of our duty is to be the voice of people in Parliament, wherever we come from. If we believe that Ministers and the Chancellor are not doing their job or giving those people what they need, it is our job to come here, and bang on their doors and make sure that they know what we are saying.
	To give a classic example, last week, a local business man asked me to go and see him. He is a successful man who wants to be even more successful. He has the opportunity to develop to service stations up and down the motorway system. About nine months ago, he had the chance of a 100 per cent. loan from his bank. He is putting things in place, but it has now told him that it is giving him only 70 per cent., despite the fact that the businesses and the property that he owns would more than compensate if the business went belly-up, as the bank could claw all that back. At the same time, the bank told him that his overdraft charge would go from 13 per cent. to 17 per cent. That is a case that I shall certainly take up, on his behalf and on behalf of others like him. We must say to our Government, "You must put that right."
	Finally, I turn to the subject of housing. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) is on the Front Bench. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) spoke about social housing and a number of hon. Members who were present agreed in principle with what she said, although we may have party political differences on the matter. There is a need for social housing, but there is also a great opportunity to do what our parents and grandparents did in the 1950s by regenerating areas and building quality social housing, not rubbish like the housing that was built in the 1960s.
	We must build social housing that people want to live in and make homes in. We should be clear that that housing is there for ever for people who cannot afford to buy their houses. If people want to buy their houses, they should buy on the open market. Let us build social housing and use the rents over the next 50 or 100 years, whatever it takes, to pay back the money put into them. It is a long-term investment that will provide work—

Charles Kennedy: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him on his by-election victory of not that long ago. I must give credit where credit is due. With regard to the closures to which he refers, one was scheduled in another part of my constituency, Ullapool, but the Government have backed off. However, the alternative offices were, respectively, Wick, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), and one of the two centres in Inverness, in the constituency of my other neighbouring parliamentary colleague, so it would have been ridiculous to reduce the presence in Ullapool. I welcome that fact.
	A lot of work that was under way, and in the pipeline at a governmental level, has now been overtaken by economic events. The example cited by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) is one. The budget for Highlands and Islands Enterprise, although it comes within the purview of the Scottish Executive, has been cut by £50 million, and its purpose is to provide help in extremis. The budget decision was taken some time ago, but the financial situation has plummeted in the meantime, so some mechanisms of state support have been constrained just when they are needed. I therefore wish the hon. Gentleman luck with his ongoing campaign. The Government should listen to those in Crewe and Nantwich and constituencies across the country, where, sadly, such state support will be needed by citizens who already find themselves encountering hard economic circumstances. Alas, as we all know, they are liable to encounter even more of the same as 2009 progresses. I hope that the Government can take steps to assist with the problems of unemployment in Lochaline and in the wider community of Morvern.
	On the Queen's Speech as a whole and employment prospects, transport and infrastructure considerations are important for the entire economy, but for an area as peripheral and remote from markets as the highlands and islands of Scotland, such considerations, as well as the cost of fuel, are vital. I welcomed some of the Chancellor's recent announcements in the pre-Budget statement—it has been renamed so many times that the correct nomenclature is difficult to remember—running in tandem with the Queen's Speech. However, it must be said that the impact on jobs in the highlands of Scotland of the continuing difficulties generated by fuel prices and the way in which the Government have set about their revenue take remains crippling.
	I have mentioned one remote community, Lochaline, but another such community is Applecross, on the west coast of Ross-shire. The weekend before last, I was fortunate enough to be there and to observe that, thanks to tremendous efforts in that small and isolated community, the local petrol pumps had just been reopened as a result of the activities of the community and the Applecross community company. The company was able to raise enough funds to ensure that, when people needed to fill their tanks, they need not face—would you believe?—a 40-mile round trip to and from what were the nearest petrol pumps, in the metropolis known as Lochcarron, over the Bealach na Ba. If nothing has done so already, the mention of those place names will guarantee me an envelope from the  Hansard reporters at the end of my speech!
	However, it is not just access to fuel that is vital to a community of that kind. The cost is such that it inhibits everything else to do with creating jobs and maintaining them. People face longer journeys and higher prices, along with few if any alternatives. The Government must bear it in mind that power companies in this country have received £9 billion from the carbon emission trading scheme that they have not passed on to domestic energy consumers: something should be done about that before Christmas. Meanwhile, the Government are continuing to rake a considerable amount into the national exchequer through the fuel costs that people are paying for their transport. All those factors have a massive inhibiting effect on the employment prospects of areas such as mine.
	The third and final issue that I wish to raise is related to employment, although it falls within the housing field, and the United Kingdom housing field. I refer to the level of housing debt. Because it remains a Treasury matter, Members of Parliament in the Highland council area have been lobbying the Treasury for some time on the extent of the council's existing overhang in terms of housing debt.
	The Treasury keeps citing the golden rule when it comes to trying to wipe out debt. For reasons that are well understood, the Government flaunted the golden rule in the context of the banking community; if they could do something similar in the context of a local authority such as Highland council, we might see the attainment of more Government objectives that are widely shared across the political spectrum.
	The Government could invest in energy efficiency—in home insulation, for instance. They could bring about a welcome raising of social standards, and improve people's general welfare. However, a potential triple gain in the form of trades and skills—which are good for employment, overall energy policy and improved living standards—is being threatened. The lack of employment opportunities is all the worse at a time when we are losing jobs and will continue to lose jobs, but I have identified an affordable and efficient way in which the Government could generate growth in an area such as mine.
	There is another way of doing that—partly through the Scottish Executive, but also through the Chancellor's welcome proposal in the pre-Budget report to front-load money over two years. Let me make a particular plea. In the context of geography and distance, the state of a main artery such as the A82, particularly between Glasgow and Fort William, remains an appalling indictment of present-day communications in a modern, developed country such as ours. Therefore, given that road's strategic UK importance for tourism and for shipping products generated locally south and out to European markets, any encouragement that the Scotland Office can give would be welcome.
	Over the coming year, we will face a very hard time indeed in our employment prospects and the social impact they will have. Let us hope that, beyond the fairly thin content of this Queen's Speech, there is action that the Government can take.

Tobias Ellwood: It is an honour to participate in this important debate. It is the usual debate that we have following the Queen's Speech, but we are certainly in unusual times. The content of the speech and the ideas and the vision displayed by the Government are under scrutiny and are all the more relevant as the scale of the recession become apparent.
	Of course, this is the second opportunity that the Government have had to lay out their store following the pre-Budget statement, which was a chance to map the course that would be taken to weather the unsettled phase of this economic cycle. It has now become apparent that this is less about economic cycles and more about political cycles. As the dust settles, we see that Labour has provided £20 billion of savings but £40 billion of taxes. The cut in VAT is being seen and treated as a gimmick and there is no common sense in increasing taxes through national insurance at the very time when businesses want a reduction in taxes.
	Rumour has it that the Chancellor will be back at the Dispatch Box in the not too distant future with another idea and will probably have to borrow more money, too. He will no doubt repeat the claim that the whole crisis started in the United States with the sub-prime market, but it was this Government who stripped the Bank of England of its historic ability to ensure that banking credit was kept within reasonable limits, this Government who allowed banks to offer massive loans and mortgages to those who could not afford them, and, of course, this Government who spent so much that they have no other choice than to borrow more money now. The result is an unsustainable debt-fuelled boom, followed by one of the biggest busts in history. I understand that the UK is now forecast to have the worst recession of all the G8 countries.
	I mentioned in an intervention the other claim that the Prime Minister is keen to put forward, which is that other countries are copying the approach of weathering the recession with recapitalisation of the banks. That part is true, but whereas the £37 billion of taxpayers' money that the Government have lent to the banks has been lent at an annual coupon of 12 per cent., that figure was about 5 per cent. in Germany or the United States. At the same time, the Government are asking banks not only to hand those loans on to small businesses but to sort out their own debts. They cannot do both, and that is why the money is stuck and why it is not getting down to the small businesses.
	We have touched a lot on employment, so it would be good to take stock after the monologue we heard from the Secretary of State. We would be forgiven for thinking that things were going well, but 5 million people are still on work benefits. Unemployment is rising and is at its highest for 11 years.
	 The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
	That at this day's sitting, proceedings on the Queen's Speech (Motion for an Address) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until 11 o'clock.— ( Ian Lucas.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Debate accordingly resumed.
	 Question again proposed

Tobias Ellwood: Two in three of all jobs created are in the public sector, according to the  Financial Times today. Four in five jobs created by the Government have been given to migrant workers.
	We had a brief discussion about the importance of level 3 apprenticeships. The number is down and has been falling for the last seven years, yet those apprenticeships are critical in supporting businesses' employment and training needs. The Government are not taking us in the right direction.
	More important is the worrying cultural change and the attitude of today's youth towards work. A small but increasing number of people are growing up to believe that it is acceptable to live off the state. The economic and social significance of that is extremely serious. With limited ambitions, people do not gain educational qualifications to the same standard, skills are not obtained and the capability of the work force is diminished. If there is one failure that hangs round the neck of the new Labour project, it is that it has overseen a generation's declining aspiration in favour of the expectation of state support. It has never been easier for Britons to be sponsored by Government to do nothing. That is a sad indictment of where we are today. It not only costs the state more in increased handouts, but there is a loss of potential income tax, which means less money for the Government to inject in the economy.
	An area of the economy that is suffering, and has not been mentioned yet, is tourism. It is Britain's fifth biggest industry and of huge importance. It generates revenue of about £90 billion a year and is considered the hidden giant of our economy. Tourism is twice the size of the IT sector and four times the size of the agricultural sector, yet it is rarely mentioned. It is responsible for one in four of the new jobs created in the UK, and with 30 million visitors to the UK every year we are the sixth most popular country in international tourist tables—something of which we can be very proud indeed.
	The recession is not just affecting businesses through the banking crisis, but also because fewer people are choosing to holiday and to travel from abroad to seek work in the service industries. Labour is ignoring the problems of the tourism industry. When I asked the Minister with responsibility for tourism when she last had conversations with her counterparts in the Departments for Transport and for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and indeed the Treasury, I found that such meetings never happen. No one in the Government is looking after tourism from the Government perspective.
	To make matters worse, a complicated and confusing structure is compounded by devolution. Visit Scotland does its own thing, as do Visit Wales and Visit England. Regional development agencies disperse responsibility for tourism around nine regions, to the point that in Boston, Massachusetts there are separate offices for six RDAs representing different corners of Britain, all trying to attract people to the UK. How mad is that? There is overlap that needs to be addressed, but it has not been done because no one in the Government is taking responsibility.
	Another example of poor co-ordination is between the Home Office and the tourism industry. Visa costs have jumped by 130 per cent. according to the Tourism Alliance, which has led to a loss of about £160 million a year. That is bad enough, but if we look at who is coming to Britain, we see that although there were 100,000 applications for British visas from China last year, France and Germany receive 500,000 tourists from China every year. That is simply because the visa for those countries is so much cheaper.
	Heathrow is another great example of a failure of co-ordination between Departments to ensure that the gateway to Britain is something of which we can be proud. The Heathrow experience is now listed as most business people's first bad impression of Great Britain, yet no one takes responsibility for co-ordinating all the agencies, organisations and Government Departments so that we can try to correct that.
	A recent report by Deloitte shows that there is an absence of proper Government support that would allow the United Kingdom to punch above its weight when it comes to tourism. The last tourism Bill to pass through Parliament did so in 1969. We are overdue an assessment of where British tourism stands. One industry that could have been helped is the pub industry. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are a supporter of your local traditional pub, as many of us are. It is in such pubs that responsible drinking takes place. Sadly, 36 of those traditional pubs shut every week. Once they are closed, they are gone for good.
	What have the Government done to help those pubs? They decided to increase duty on alcohol. There are reasons why they did that, to do with tackling the booze culture, but the move affects traditional pubs across the board. Apparently, duties have gone up to negate the reduction in VAT, but when VAT goes back up again next year, will duties go back down? No. It is yet another whammy that will hit our traditional pubs.
	The reduction in VAT is viewed as a joke. Many small and medium-sized businesses in the tourism industry are already offering 15 per cent. discounts, so reducing VAT by 1, 2 or 3 per cent. is negligible; it has no impact whatever. The administrative changes needed to show the reduction in VAT will cost each retailer an average of about £2,300—and the change is to be for just one year. Tourism is important to Britain, yet we are not harnessing the opportunities that British tourism could provide. That attitude will not change until the Government start to appreciate this £90 billion industry, which accounts for 1.4 million full-time employees—that is 7 per cent. of the work force—and 200,000 small and medium-sized businesses.
	I shall conclude, because I know that time is against us. We enter the stormy seas of this recession poorly prepared, and we are all the more exposed as a result of failure to navigate the quickest course out of it. Instead of assisting small businesses, we are burdening them with higher taxes. Instead of helping banks to provide loans, the Government are loaning taxpayers' money to banks at 12 per cent. interest, which means that there is no liquidity to pass on. Instead of harnessing the full economic potential of the next generation, the Government are fuelling a cultural shift towards mediocrity.
	I fear that only a change in Government will invigorate people and bring about the seismic shift that is needed to reverse that flawed attitude. I hope that after that change, we will be able to rejuvenate the next generation, so that they stay in school until they are 18 not just because the Government tells them to, but because they want to; so that they seek a job not because otherwise they will lose their benefit, but because they have a skill on which they can build, that gives them a good salary and of which they can be proud. For the sake of Britain, the sooner the next general election is called, the better.

Edward Timpson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute briefly to this important debate on issues that are ever more relevant. In the six months for which I have had the honour of representing the people of Crewe and Nantwich, the issue of employment has never been far away. As the weeks have progressed, the issue has become more and more pressing.
	I am sure that none of us in the House wishes to see our constituents struggle as a result of losing their job or livelihood, and I am sure that we all do what we can to prevent that happening, but one of the harsh realities of a recession is large-scale unemployment, and that seems particularly to be the case in this recession. A Local Government Association report suggests that there will be 230,000 job losses in the north-west by December 2010. In Crewe, there have been recent job losses in the public sector. There is the closure of local post offices and the imminent closure of the Royal Mail sorting office, with the loss of 600 jobs. As of last week, the third-largest Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs office in the north-west was to close, with a loss of up to 80 jobs. In the private sector, the car, manufacturing and retail industries are all prominent, with the likes of Bentley, Bombardier, Focus DIY, Woolworths, MFI and others all feeling the crunch in the current conditions, which will have a significant impact on the local economy.
	Crewe is synonymous with the rail and motor industries, which continue to provide the backbone of the local job market together with, in more recent years, the retail and service sectors. As the recession bites, there is an opportunity not only to secure the short-term survival of those industries and businesses but to prepare them for long-term sustainable recovery. I agree with the Government, albeit not necessarily on their suggested implementation, that we have been presented with an opportune moment to invest in the training and skills necessary to see us through the short and the long term. There is a huge dearth of skills, particularly in the engineering sector, which has been recognised by the Secretary of State himself. In Crewe, Bentley has 3,500 employees, and runs a successful apprenticeship scheme that it intends to expand, despite the downturn. Bombardier, LNWR, Freightline and other railway industries that are part of the Crewe railway network have waited a long time to ensure that their apprenticeship schemes are full, and they all have long waiting lists of people who want to join the industry.
	On 10 November this year, the Minister for the North West said:
	"The challenge we face is that within the next decade, large numbers of unskilled jobs will be replaced by high-skilled ones. We must ensure that the north-west workforce is not left behind."
	That is precisely why, with others—I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) on the Front Bench, as he was involved in the Westminster Hall debate on the issueI have advocated the overwhelming case for a national railway skills academy in Crewe that is employer-led and meets the short and long-term needs of an industry that is getting back on its feet and is on the rise. This could not be a better moment, from the Government's perspective and for the Opposition, for such an initiative to be put into practice.
	Not all the employment difficulties are a direct result of the downturn. The public sector work force in Crewe has been hit hard by the closures that have been announced of the Royal Mail sorting office and the HMRC office, both of which are unconnected to the credit crunch. Both consultations began before the economic crisis, yet the Government have seen fit to continue with that folly, despite the need for those jobs in future. As a consequence of the independent Lyons review of public sector relocation, the Government recognised the need for the transfer of civil service jobs from London and the south-east to the regions, and the review said:
	The Government is committed to improving the efficient delivery of public services, boosting regional economic growth and bringing government closer to the people, through greater decentralisation and devolution.
	By making those announcements on HMRC and Royal Mail in Crewe, however, they have done the exact opposite. They have started to centralise those systems, taking away local jobs and services at a time at which they are most needed.
	In July 2003, the then Minister for Employment and Learning, said that
	recent job losses in the north-west make co-ordinating the response by Government, education providers and local communities essential.
	It appears in Crewe, however, that the Government have not learned that lesson, and good-quality public sector jobs have been lost, with no proper consultation with the local community. Along with that, there is a loss of valuable local knowledge and expertise, which will have a direct effect on local families and businesses.
	The two Government Departments responsible for the restructuring of both Royal Mail and HMRC worked independently of each other, with no apparent thought given to the overall consequences for the local economy, which flies in the face of the concept of joined-up government and of a co-ordinated approach.
	The Government's response to the vehement and united campaign to keep open the HMRC office in Crewe was particularly depressing for two reasons. First, by moving local public services away from local people, the Government are doing the exact opposite of the commitment given in response to the Lyons review. Secondly, by not pursuing a local strategy to deal with the recession, places such as Crewe are being hit disproportionately. In a town that still relies heavily on its manufacturing and motor industries, the opportunity to keep efficient, dedicated, valuable, local public sector staff in work has been missed. That would have softened the blow and given the local economy of Crewe and Nantwich the platform on which to rebuild. It is not too late for both Government Departments to grab that opportunity.

Andrew Stunell: I do not have long, but it would be remiss of me not to commend the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), which was assured and witty. Let me also put on record my strong support for what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) said from the Front Bench about housing. I want to address my remarks to the quantity and quality of housing.
	The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) said that the Government's intentions as regards the quantity of housing have been seriously undermined over the past six months. The small amount of social housing as well as a catastrophic fall in the private housing sector interact with the quality of housing. In England, we have the most expensive housing, the smallest number of houses in relation to households, and the worst quality of housing environmentally and otherwise. Housing produces 27 per cent. of this country's carbon dioxide emissions. The central point that I want to make to the Government is that as this recession develops, they will be strongly tempted to chase the quantity of housing and to sacrifice its quality. I urge the Minister not to do that. We have some 20 million homes at the moment, and at the current rate of building, 80 per cent. of them will still be there in 2050. If we got back to the level that the Prime Minister talked about in July, 70 per cent. of housing in 2050 would already have been built. We need new policies to ensure that new housing, including new social housing, is built to the very highest standards, but we also need to ensure that we tackle the problems with the existing stock. We need policies not just for the new housing, but for the 80 per cent. of it that will still be there in 25 years' time. We need policies that cut carbon dioxide emissions, cut people's bills and reduce fuel poverty. The Chancellor has said that he will do whatever it takes to tackle the recession, and I say to the Under-Secretary and the Government that tackling the problems associated with the existing housing stock would be a good four-way hitcutting carbon dioxide, cutting people's bills, cutting fuel poverty and providing jobs. The retrofitting of energy-saving measures to existing housing ought to be high on the agenda. That process would be assisted by a cut in VAT for alternations and renovations, which in turn would end the paradox of it costing more to alter buildings than to build new ones.
	We need legislative changes as well, and the process is not that difficult given that the law is already in place. I say without any shame that I promoted the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act, which received Royal Assent in September 2004. That Act provides the Government with the levers they need to bring new buildings up to standard to tackle climate change, to allow for the alteration and repair of existing homes and to improve building standards in existing housing stock. One of the current paradoxes is that someone replacing a roof put on in the 1960s is required to do so only to the environmental standards of the 1960s. Many people would say that that was absurd. The process does not require zillions of pounds of public cash, but the Under-Secretary must implement the provisions of the Sustainable and Secure Building Act, which the Government and all parties supported in 2004.
	My plea is that the Government should not chase housing numbers at the expense of sound environmental quality, and that they should make a resolute startalbeit an unnecessary four years lateon getting existing homes properly insulated and updated. They should tackle climate change, secure more jobs, tackle fuel poverty and give people well-being in their homes.

Bob Neill: This has certainly been a wide-ranging debate, and hon. Members on both sides have brought to bear a considerable wealth of experience from their constituencies and their backgrounds, which was an advantage. For that reason, and because of the time constraints, I hope that Members will forgive me if I do not go into detail about all of their points. I would like, however, to join hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on an excellent and well-received maiden speech. It was not that long ago that I, as a by-election entrant to this House, was in the same position. We all wish him well, and hope to hear from him again in the future.
	It was apparent that a common theme ran through both elements of the debatea litany of failure on the part of Government policy on skills and housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) dealt with skills at some length in his opening speech, and I will therefore not go into as much detail on that topic as I will on housing. It is important to reinforce, however, that evidence introduced by hon. Members strongly supported my hon. Friend's point. In the skills agenda, we suffer from a huge over-engineering and complexity in the systems for delivering desirable objectives. There are more funding streams and agencies than one would find in the wiring diagram for a modest-sized cruise missile. No wonder it is difficult for those seeking to enter the skills systemnever mind businessesto navigate. Greater simplicity and clarity would be a huge advantage, hence my party's proposals to concentrate heavily on apprenticeships, which have been referred to repeatedly in this debate, and to ensure an emphasis on practical learning, vocational skills and the needs of business, particularly small and medium-sized businesses. I am afraid that the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills does not seem to have learned that lesson.
	On housing, DUIS and the Department for Communities and Local Government at least share one thing in common: they seem almost to be in a competition to see how many initiatives and pledges can be abandoned. It is a bit like a competition between Elizabeth Taylor and Zsa Zsa Gabor to see who has the most discarded wedding rings on their dressing table.  [ Interruption. ] I know that it was a long time ago for the Under-Secretary, but I am sure that he will have read about it in a history book. If he goes back to Madonna, perhaps he will get the same flavour, but it would be good for him to go back a little further.
	Let me remind the Minister of some issues closer to home. We have seen the collapse of delivery in the Government's housing policy. The root of all our problems is that not enough homes are being built and it is this Government who are failing to build them. On average, 31,000 fewer homes are being built a year than under the previous Conservative Government. Fewer affordable homes are being built. Not once in all these years have the Government built as many affordable homes, which are at the sharp end of need, as were built in any equivalent year under the Major and Thatcher Governments. That is a lamentable failure of the most vulnerable and the most in need.
	The private housing sector has also been subject to failure. No wonder there is so much legitimate concern about repossessions, to which hon. Members have referred. Why is that such a difficulty? Not only is there a lack of supply arising from the Government's policies, but the explosion of easy credit exacerbated the problem and pumped up the housing market in an unsustainable fashion. Who is responsible for driving that?  [ Interruption. ] It is no one on the Conservative Benches, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) well knows, but the Prime Minister, first as Chancellor of the Exchequer and now as Head of Government. Who personally removed the Bank of England's power to call time on bank lending and who stoked up an unsustainable housing boom? It was the Prime Minister. Now that the consequences are coming home, it is ordinary hard-working families who are having to bear the brunt.
	Abandoned ideas litter the Department for Communities and Local Government a bit like the abandoned gun carriages that littered the road from Moscow back to Paris in 1812. There has been a full-scale retreat by the Government on those policy issues.

Iain Wright: I begin by joining the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) in paying tribute to all the contributions to tonight's debate. Hon. Members brought their experience, knowledge and considerable expertise to bear on the debate, which greatly benefited from it.
	I start by paying particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) for his high-quality, witty and insightful speech. I have a great deal of affection for hon. Members who come here following by-elections. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did that, and I did so about four years ago as a result of the previous MP representing Hartlepool, my noble Friend Lord Mandelson, moving away, although I do not really know what happened to that individual! After 11 years of a Labour Government and with the biggest financial turbulence the world has seen since the first world war, it is striking that my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes was able to win that by-electionand win it so decisively. That is testimony, first, to the policies that the Government are advancing and, secondly, to the personal qualities of my hon. Friend. He comes to the House with a formidable reputation in matters of education and skills; on the basis of his speech tonight, I am sure that we shall hear a lot more of him. He will be a true asset to this place.
	The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) displayed his usual smooth and articulate manner to the House, but I have to say with the greatest respect to him that he was somewhat complacent and disparaging about the success of a generation of young learners. He mentioned the importance of freedoms that incorporation in the 1990s brought to further education colleges in his area and othersand they were quite rightly welcomed, so I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. He failed to mention, however, that FE colleges were not quite so grateful for the cut in sector fundingby 7 per cent. in real termsduring the four years up to 1997 or for the fact that earmarked expenditure on FE capital under the Major Government came to a grand total of zero. Public investment in adult skills since 1997, in contrast, has been transformed. It has increased from 3.8 billion in 2002-03 to 4.7 billion in 2008-09 and is planned to increase to 4.9 billion in 2009-10.
	The UK has made strong progress in recent years, particularly in helping those with the lowest skills. Apprenticeship starts have increased from 65,000 in 1996-97, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, to 184,000 in 2006-07. Crucially, the number of people completing apprenticeships has trebled. In England, the proportion of people of working age with no qualifications has fallen by almost 6 percentage points from more than 17 per cent. in 1997 to more than 11 per cent. in 2007. About 75 per cent. of economically active adults aged 18 and over are now qualified to at least level 2, which is a formidable record of which we can be very proud.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) made some important points about the marine and coastal access Bill. Perhaps more importantly, he brought to bear his considerable expertise in science and his history of teaching in a university under a Conservative Government. He mentioned the brain drain in the 1980s and 1990s, which has been stopped and reversed to the point at which senior international academics and students are now attracted to British universities. He mentioned funding for science and how important it was that it continued, which was echoed in the excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Let me point out to the House the details of such funding over the past dozen years.
	In 1997-98, the science budget was 2.4 billion; it is now 5.6 billion, and will be 5.9 billion in 2009-10. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned the importance of the exploitation and commercialisation of research in higher education, on which they are absolutely right. They are obviously aware of the work of the higher education innovation fund in England, which helps knowledge transfer activities between universities and firms. As a result, university research income from contract research and consultancy has trebled since 2000 to more than 1 billion a year, and income from intellectual property licensing has also trebled. One of the areas in which I am interested is that of so-called green-collarlow-carbonjobs, which can help to drive economic growth. It has been estimated that the overall added value in the low-carbon energy industry could be worth at least 3 trillion a year by 2050, and could employ more than 25 million people globally. Through the measures put in place by the Government, the UK is well placed to take advantage of opportunities for such technologies. The UK needs to build on that success by developing the appropriate skills, research and infrastructure base and making conditions conducive to innovation.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) described vividly and evocatively the pressures on both new supply of housing and the quality of existing housing stock. Her comments were echoed by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). He was concerned that we will go for quantity rather than quality. That is absolutely not the casewe need to ensure that we build homes to last, not to be condemned in 10 or 20 years' time.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East gave somewhat grudging support for the Government's package on repossessions. She will be aware of the Prime Minister's announcements on the day of the Queen's Speech with regard to the home owner mortgage support scheme. As part of a wider package of help for home owners, that will enable ordinary, hard-working households that experience a redundancy or significant loss of income to reduce their monthly payments to a more manageable level by deferring a proportion of the interest payments on their mortgage for up to two years. The country's eight largest lenders, who represent 70 per cent. of lending, have already agreed to support the new scheme and have pledged to work with the Government to implement it. That is on top of an earlier package to help to minimise repossessions, such as opening the mortgage rescue scheme to vulnerable households, fast-tracking the set-up of mortgage rescue schemes, and making the support for mortgage interest schemes more generous. We will not leave hard-working families who are frightened about losing their home high and dry, as happened in the 1990s. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that hard-working families can keep their homes, and to minimise repossessions.
	In an excellent speech, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) mentioned the growth in redundancies in his constituency, which he said had not been affected in such a way by previous downturns. His comments were echoed in the contribution of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson).
	Let me put the position in context. This year, the number of people unemployed and claming benefits reached its lowest level for more than 30 years. The number of people in work increased by more than 3 million to about 29.5 million, the highest number ever. However, I do not want the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to think that I am complacent. I am aware of the pressures on employment caused by the economic downturn.

Iain Wright: It is good to see the hon. Gentleman back from the pantomime, but this is a serious point. As with repossessions, we are keen to minimise the number of people unemployed as much as possible. We do not want people to say This is good for the economy: it is inevitable that we have some sort of recession and some sort of growth in unemployment, so we are investing an extra 1.3 billion in Jobcentre Plus and other services over the next two years to respond to rising unemployment. I believe that that will not only maintain but increase the support that we offer to people who unfortunately, as a result of the current global turbulence, may lose their jobs.
	The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentionedagain, in a thoughtful waythe frustration caused by the fact that some agencies, such as regional development agencies and local authorities, cannot gain access to funds in a coherent manner. The Government recognise that many businesses face real difficulties, and I think we have responded well by announcing a package of measures that will support small and medium-sized enterprises by addressing their top priorities: cash flow, access to finance, and training. Central Government are committed to paying businesses within 10 days, and RDAs are supporting that commitment. We are offering free health checks for businesses in England through the Business Link support services to help identify potential problems as early as possible, and we are providing financial informationproduced by the Institute of Credit Managementto help United Kingdom businesses to maintain cash flow, which is essential at this time.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned eco-townsafter 19 minutes, which was probably a record for him. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) also mentioned eco-towns, along with the problems involved in a judicial review. A court hearing will be held on 22 January next year. The case concerns the process as a whole, but the challenge is very specific to Middle Quinton. We believe that we have followed the right consultation process, and we will contest the case robustly. We are determined to meet the twin challenges of trying to increase housing supply and addressing environmental issues, and eco-towns offer an exciting way of doing that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) spoke with eloquence of his experience and analysed with great accuracy the industrial policy of previous Conservative Governments, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). I was greatly interested by his comments about the trade union movement and its links, on our patch, with Durham university. He will be aware of the great work of union learning representatives, which has done much to upskill the work force. As a fellow north-eastern Member, I am aware of the links between businesses and colleges and how strong they are on our patch, particularlyas my hon. Friend said in his excellent speechthe link between Nissan and Gateshead college. I also agree with him about the central importance of local authorities in trying to adapt to harsh economic realities
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) was heavy on criticism but light on policy alternatives, which befits his position as a Front-Bench spokesman. I found the contribution of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) somewhat curious: he seemed to suggest that in attempting to attract overseas investment, the country should not publicise our strengths and competitive advantage. He too was heavy on criticism and light on alternatives, and I would imagine, with the greatest respect to him, that it will not be too long before he too is on his party's Front Bench.
	The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) mentioned employment in his constituency, and his fear that we might return to the 1980s when adult male unemployment stood at 50 per cent. He mentioned the problems involving Tarmac, which I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
	The challenges facing Government are clear. We need to help people through these tough times and respond effectively to economic downturn. We need to prepare for the upturn, and lay the foundations for long-term prosperity and sustainable growth.
	The measures we announced in the Gracious Speech offer real, practical help for families, businesses and communities in these difficult times, but we are also planning for the future, taking the decisions now to help the country prosper and thrive over the longer term.
	 Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. ( Barbara Keeley .)
	 Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Health Care (Sunderland)

Patrick McFadden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on securing the debate at this perhaps later than planned hour. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and I know that he has pursued the issue with great tenacity and determination.
	The hon. Gentleman's principal concern, as he has outlined, is about how the recent consultation process operated in his constituency, so I shall not take up too much of his time by going over the background to the post office closure programme in general. He will know that that background is a drop in the number of customers of about 5 million a week in recent years and a network that is losing 500,000 a day. Of course, the Government do not see the Post Office as a purely commercial network and that is why through investment, subsidy and funding debt the Government will put about 3.7 billion into the network between 1997 and 2011.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned profitability and asserted that the two branches in his constituency were profitable. But profitable from whose point of view? When central coststhose supplied by the networkand sub-postmaster costs are taken into account, three in four post offices are not profitable but are in fact dependent on some kind of support. I counsel caution on the hon. Gentleman's part when asserting profitability.
	The programme for reducing the size of the network by about 2,500 from 14,000 branches has been taking place over the past year or so, finishing with the area plan that covered the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine. I should make it clear that as a Minister I have played no part over the past year in selecting individual branches for closure. That difficult task is carried out by Post Office Ltd.
	The hon. Gentleman raised some specific concerns. He focused on the role of Postwatch in scrutinising responses to the local consultation and thus the basis on which Post Office Ltd reached its final decisions about the closure proposals in his constituency. Postwatch plays an important role in the process. It represents the consumer, and as the Prime Minister said in his letter to the hon. Gentleman, Postwatch is the trigger for putting an individual closure decision into a review process conducted jointly by Post Office Ltd and Postwatch. The hon. Gentleman used some harsh words, saying the process was all a sham and so on.
	There are two phases for proposals in an area plan. There is a pre-consultation phase, when Post Office Ltd discusses its initial plan with sub-postmasters and perhaps with local authorities and others in the area. During that phase about 10 to 15 per cent. of proposals are changed, depending on individual area plans. There is then a six-week public consultation, and over the past year about 91 closure decisions were withdrawn during that process, although a number were followed by replacement closure decisions.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he does not believe that Postwatch properly fulfilled its functions in the consideration of responses in his area, and that for two branches in particular, Comberton Hill and the Walshes, the process was not properly carried out. He raised two issues: first, Postwatch's incorporation into Consumer Focus, the new combined consumer body and, secondly, the consideration of specific representations made about the branches. As he said, he raised his concerns at Prime Minister's questions and subsequently in a letter to the Prime Minister. He talked about his difficulties in trying to contact Postwatch by telephone.
	The Prime Minister responded to the hon. Gentleman's concerns on 1 December. He referred to the incorrect contact information that I acknowledge was given out by Consumer Direct. I understand that Mr. Howard Webber, the chief executive of Postwatchwho remains in charge of the residual Postwatch role in the network change programmeapologised for the error in what the hon. Gentleman was told and for the failure to copy him into the letter to which he referred.
	Checks continue to be made in Consumer Direct about the information that is passed on. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman was not given the correct information when he called, but the critical question is whether that inhibited Postwatch in carrying out its proper role in the area plan, and I disagree with him that the merger with Consumer Focus stopped Postwatch from doing that. The situation was envisaged, and the Postwatch team working on the network change programme was kept on during the transfer so that it could continue its jobindeed, I spoke to Mr. Howard Webber today and he is still doing that. With regard to the closure programme that affected the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the chief executive of Postwatch attended the key meetings, so I am afraid that I do not agree that the merger in which Consumer Focus was created stopped Postwatch playing its proper role.
	Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman's second concern, which he raised in letters of 13 and 17 November to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I gather that there may have been an issue to do with the hon. Gentleman not receiving a reply from me, but as far as I know, he wrote to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I am not aware of his having written to me directly on the matter. He will be aware that the process in government is that letters eventually find their way to the correct Minister, even if they were not sent to the correct Minister, and I have now replied to him.
	In that correspondence, the hon. Gentleman raised concerns about whether consultation responses sent by Wyre Forest district council and Robert Arthur Davies Ltd had been properly considered. It appeared initially that those responses may not have been seen by Postwatch staff before final decisions were signed off. However, I understand that Postwatch has confirmed that the Wyre Forest district council response to which the hon. Gentleman referred was received, logged and seen by the appropriate Postwatch staff at the appropriate time. Postwatch confirmed that to me today, when I checked.
	Postwatch has not found a record of having received a response from Robert Arthur Davies Ltd. The issue is whether that had a material effect on Postwatch's judgment on whether to recommend the branch in question for the review process. Both the responses were seen by Post Office Ltd before it reached its final decisions on the branches at Comberton Hill and the Walshes. The points made in both responses were reflected in the summary of responses prepared by Post Office Ltd and shared with Postwatch. It is important to recognise that those summaries of responses are the primary and most comprehensive channel through which the Post Office was able to consider and assess local issues and concerns about each specific closure or network change proposal in the past year. That is true not only of the plan covering the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but more generally, across the programme.
	My understanding is that, with regard to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the branches that he is concerned about, some 14 responses covering concerns raised by businesses were included in the summary of responses. Postwatch believes that it had the necessary information to enable it to make a decision on whether to ask for a branch closure to be reviewed, and it decided not to ask for such a review. The reason for that decision is the proximity of alternative branches.
	I always tread carefully when it comes to local knowledge; the hon. Gentleman will have much more of it than me. However, I understand that Postwatch's view is that there is an alternative to the Comberton Hill branch 0.6 miles away. Kidderminster has three post offices and there are eight post offices within a 3 mile radius of the Comberton Hill branch. As for the other branch, there is an alternative office a similar distance from itabout 0.7 miles away. There are two post offices within a mile of it, and five alternative branches within 3 miles. Postwatch did not think that there were grounds for a review in those circumstances.
	Let me turn to the three questions that the hon. Gentleman asked me at the end of his speech. He asked whether sub-postmasters lose all compensation if they provide services that they previously provided in their post office. They do not lose all compensation. The compensation was negotiated with the National Federation of SubPostmasters, which represents sub-postmasters. Its general secretary thought it fair that an adjustment be made to the compensation package. He said, Why should taxpayers subsidise sub-postmasters for the loss of business that they are not actually losing? An adjustment is made, but I would argue that the compensation for sub-postmasters is still fair.
	I would also point out that the sub-postmasters of post offices closed under the previous Government did not receive any compensation at all. As for the question of whether third-party organisations can step in, I suggest that I write to the hon. Gentleman about what we have said about that, because letters have been issued by the previous Secretary of State setting out how that might happen. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Essex county council, for example. I have covered the review process, which is triggered by Postwatch if it thinks that there are grounds for doing so such as proximity to other branches and so on. In the case of the two branches to which he referred, Postwatch did not think that there was a case. It saw the summary of responses that was supplied, and that was its main source of information throughout the programme. I do not think that it was shamI do not argue that it was perfectbut I suggest that as the POCA decision has now been made, this is hopefully a period of stability for the network after the closure programme.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.
	Correction
	Wednesday 3 December 2008, column 12, delete International Development Act 2002 and insert International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006;
	delete my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) and insert my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn);
	and before ministerial team, delete her and insert his.